Measuring Pragmatic Influence in Large Language Model Instructions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
It is not only what we ask large language models (LLMs) to do that matters, but also how we ask them. Phrases like ``This is urgent'' or ``As your supervisor'' can shift model behavior without altering task content. We study this effect as pragmatic framing, contextual cues that shape directive interpretation rather than task specification. While prior work exploits such cues for prompt optimization or probes them as security vulnerabilities, pragmatic framing itself has received comparatively little attention as a target of controlled measurement in instruction following. To support its systematic study as a measurable property, we introduce a framework that combines three components: directive-framing decomposition separating framing context from task specification; a taxonomy organizing 400 instantiations of framing into 13 strategies across 4 mechanism clusters; and priority-based measurement that quantifies influence through observable shifts in directive prioritization. Evaluating five open-weight LLMs across different families and scales, we find that pragmatic framing produces systematic shifts in directive prioritization, and the effectiveness ranking of different strategies proves highly consistent across models. This reveals that susceptibility to pragmatic framing is a structured behavioral property of instruction-tuned systems. Measuring this susceptibility is a prerequisite for any deliberate response to it, and this work provides the framework to do so.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.
Builds on
18 of 21 references.
References · 18
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,122
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
- 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 533
- 2023"Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Modelscited by 457
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Taskscited by 217
- 2024AdvPrompter: Fast Adaptive Adversarial Prompting for LLMscited by 146
- 2023Large Language Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimulicited by 143
- 2024Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?cited by 132
- 2024Mind Your Format: Towards Consistent Evaluation of In-Context Learning Improvementscited by 82
6 more
- 2024Don't Listen To Me: Understanding and Exploring Jailbreak Prompts of Large Language Modelscited by 77
- 2025Benchmarking Prompt Sensitivity in Large Language Modelscited by 38
- 2025Control Illusion: The Failure of Instruction Hierarchies in Large Language Modelscited by 31
- 2025Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMscited by 23
- 2024Emotional Manipulation Through Prompt Engineering Amplifies Disinformation Generation in AI Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2025FLUKE: A Linguistically-Driven and Task-Agnostic Framework for Robustness Evaluationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.